If one cares to notice, we are not fighting for a single Right. We are fighting for all of them. If we lose one, the rest fall like dominoes. Freedom is a fickle thing. The Constitution, its Amendments and the Bill of Rights are timeless documents.

As for this debate over semi-autos and bump stocks; it is frivolous and this is why. Personally, I don't need a bump stock or AR-15 to kill 59 people in one setting. I am smart, I am creative and given my skill set as a hunter and long range marksman, I could inflict horrific damage on a crowd if I so chose. But, you know what? I am SANE and I have morals. Sanity and morals cannot be legislated and facts don't care about feelings. Period.

That's a poor attempt. Again, stick-and-move, classic liberal stunt. I'm not stupid so, please don't insult my intelligence. You're not going to shake me. If you ask me if it's raining where I am and I answer with, "I don't like french fries", I did not answer your question. I merely replied. Please exercise the distinction.

If you have no way to answer, please just say so. It's far better than this game of grab my a*s. We can debate merit if you choose to but that has not been the case for some time.

Sympathy is an emotion and when compared to Constitutional Rights, it means naught.

I don't disagree however,

Our constitutional rights are well and truly trampled in any number of ways already. We can't count on the judicial branch to take a strict constructionist view of the constitution to protect them which leaves the legislative where the sheeple's representatives do their bidding. (granted they run rogue but we get our just deserts for electing them in the first place.)
Sympathy is the thing that is often required to keep them from ceding any more of our rights.
I wish it weren't the case but I think the NRA is looking at the big picture and has determined they had better ameliorate the bulk of folks who can't understand why anyone "needs" a bump stock and are determined to maintain what little good will they can to fight the bigger fight that is inevitable.

I am afraid we have reached the tipping point in society and will begin to fall rapidly.

Because I think they can too easily be used to harm people and I don't see any benefit to society by allowing them. Sure, as the poster above me said "cool toy". I'm OK without the cool toys if it adds any safety to innocent people. I bet the victims don't much care about the cool toy.

I don't own a bump stock. But I am against banning them.

Your argument (and most liberals) seems to be that nobody"needs" a bump stock...there is not a value to society in having them around. I take issue with that argument.

The Constitution is all about individual liberty (aka freedom). I don't need a "need" in order to have the right to own something...I have the right to own things that you may not see value in because I have liberty.

The slippery slope of your "needs" based argument is that there is no end to it. Forget guns for a second, and let Nancy Pelosi go through your pantry at home. I bet you have plenty of food choices that you don't really need. Nobody in society does, and obesity is a huge killer. For that matter, we don't need pizza, burritos, chicken fried steak, etc etc. Think all of that is a stretch? NYC already banned 20 oz softdrinks. If they had their way, we'd all be eating tofu for every meal.

Your argument (and most liberals) seems to be that nobody"needs" a bump stock...there is not a value to society in having them around. I take issue with that argument.

The Constitution is all about individual liberty (aka freedom). I don't need a "need" in order to have the right to own something...I have the right to own things that you may not see value in because I have liberty.

The slippery slope of your "needs" based argument is that there is no end to it. Forget guns for a second, and let Nancy Pelosi go through your pantry at home. I bet you have plenty of food choices that you don't really need. Nobody in society does, and obesity is a huge killer. For that matter, we don't need pizza, burritos, chicken fried steak, etc etc. Think all of that is a stretch? NYC already banned 20 oz softdrinks. If they had their way, we'd all be eating tofu for every meal.

Just to play devil's advocate....
What if the Facebook guy wanted to buy a M1 Abrahms tank complete with munitions.
Should he be able to buy it?

Where do we draw the line?

Edit:
And for the record I priced out a AR package chambered in .223 with the CMG 22LR mod as well as bumpstocks and a Silencer Shop can.

I decided against it right now as I have no need for such a toy and my kids are too young to be around that.
Once they broke into my jeep and style my guns while I went into the gas station in Tenaha I haven't replaced them.

Your argument (and most liberals) seems to be that nobody"needs" a bump stock...there is not a value to society in having them around. I take issue with that argument.

The Constitution is all about individual liberty (aka freedom). I don't need a "need" in order to have the right to own something...I have the right to own things that you may not see value in because I have liberty.

The slippery slope of your "needs" based argument is that there is no end to it. Forget guns for a second, and let Nancy Pelosi go through your pantry at home. I bet you have plenty of food choices that you don't really need. Nobody in society does, and obesity is a huge killer. For that matter, we don't need pizza, burritos, chicken fried steak, etc etc. Think all of that is a stretch? NYC already banned 20 oz softdrinks. If they had their way, we'd all be eating tofu for every meal.

Just to play devil's advocate....
What if the Facebook guy wanted to buy a M1 Abrahms tank complete with munitions.
Should he be able to buy it?

Where do we draw the line?

Edit:
And for the record I priced out a AR package chambered in .223 with the CMG 22LR mod as well as bumpstocks and a Silencer Shop can.

I decided against it right now as I have no need for such a toy and my kids are too young to be around that.
Once they broke into my jeep and style my guns while I went into the gas station in Tenaha I haven't replaced them.

It depends on whether or not a tank fits within the definition of "arms." I think it should be legal, and I would have no problem with him owning one.

Before you take the argument to F-22's, tomahawk missiles, and nukes...there is some point where they are no longer arms. I don't know what that point is, and I don't feel like wasting the brain energy to try to figure it out right now.

Liberals are usually book smart people. They lack common sense. Always have the need to tell other people what they need or don't need. After all they know best. It's in their genetic makeup to try to fix things.

For instance you see water on the floor. You have a leak under the sink. A liberals solution is to put a bucket to catch the drip, then pound his/her chest about how they fixed the problem. After all there is no water on the floor. Eventually the bucket fills up so their solution is to get a bigger bucket. Convincing themselves that eventually a bigger bucket will solve the problem.

They have the same solution with gun control. Keep banning things until there is nothing left to ban.

I can't understand why I still haven't heard someone say, "Thank God he used a gun." I say this every time something like this happens. As several here have stated, he could have done much more damage with his plane and explosives. Don't people see that once they take away the means through restricting firearms (although with the money he had illegality wouldn't actually have been an obstacle for him) these mass murderers will turn to other more lethal means?

As for the question, "When has an e-mail killed someone?" hundreds if not thousands of people (even some of the mass murderers mentioned on this and other threads) have used it to help them commit various murderous atrocities. Various others have used it to find information about drugs that have resulted in fatalities as well. In addition, many of the whackos who've committed these slayings were inspired/warped by violent TV, music and Video Games. If you believe we should ban bump stocks, you have to also believe we should ban these and censor information on the internet.

Finally, should people be allowed to buy a tank? Yes, they should. They should also be allowed to buy bombers and carriers in the event they need to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Of course most of us cannot afford to do so but I assure you that for those who can afford to, again legality is not an obstacle for them.

Yes, buying a tank should be 1000% legal if it's not already. Not sure what you'd do with it other than run over cars. Good luck buying the munitions. The contractors who make those will not sell to anyone but the Gubmint.

Before you take the argument to F-22's, tomahawk missiles, and nukes...there is some point where they are no longer arms. I don't know what that point is, and I don't feel like wasting the brain energy to try to figure it out right now.

The tesla guy is becoming a lil Kim Jung as he's constantly testing space rockets.
If I hit the $700 million power ball should I be able to purchase a $40million helicopter loaded with 50 cal gunners?

And you wrote "where they are no longer arms...." and that is exactly what we're facing now.
The govt is saying a suppressor (and soon coming) bumpstocks are not "arms" and can be banned outside of the 2nd.
It's a constant power grab rights reduction.

Yes, buying a tank should be 1000% legal if it's not already. Not sure what you'd do with it other than run over cars. Good luck buying the munitions. The contractors who make those will not sell to anyone but the Gubmint.

Again, if I have $700 million in the bank (either hiring the powerball or getting a five year extension on my NBA contract) why wouldn't a contractor sell me $20million worth of munitions?
They sell them to north Korea and Iran all day as it is.

Good grief.
If this discussion had not been conceived - as a figure of speech - by such a tragic event, it would be almost laughable. But it's not amusing and it never will be. 58 people dead and one mothereffer that don't count. All somebody's son or daughter or father or mother or brother or sister or a close or distant relative or a dear friend. Forever dead.
Several hundred more injured. I don't know about y'all, but I personally know some people that got shot and the few of those that are still alive are just barely. I'll mention that I am a veteran, US Army. November, 1965 - November 1971. Some serious **** going on in SE Asia, do the arithmetic before challenging my experience in such matters.
I passed down all my guns to my son after I had killed my first deer with a bow, which was in 2005, I think. I've owned more guns than most people have owned shoes, no clue as to just how many. I shot quail and I shot pheasants and I shot waterfowl and I shot doves and I shot clay targets (and a few deer) with 1100's, Browning A5's and a couple Beretta's and numerous O/U's of several makes and 870's and Model 12's (pre-64's, I'm a purist) and yessir, a few times I killed 5 on a covey rise or scratched down 3 when the ducks or geese came in just right. So I can appreciate the need and desire for a repeating firearm. Pistols? Not many, a couple dozen or so, mostly wheel guns 'cause I can't hit the ground with any **** pistol. There ain't enough fingers and toes belonging to the last dozen or so posters to count the rifles I've owned - did a lot of trading, always seeking the one that had no misses installed by the factory. I owned one Model 742 in .308 and 3 different .22 caliber semi-autos. Several lever actions, both Winchester and Marlins. All the rest were bolt guns except one. A little Ruger No. 1 in 7x57 caliber, and right behind it, a Sako mannlicher stocked .243, was my favorite.
If I missed any deer more than twice and they were still a possible, I can't recall exactly when it might have been.
I love classic weapons, real and good wood and fine checkering and I think it was Warren Page that said that only accurate rifles are interesting.
To digress briefly, I've still kept one home defense weapon, (although I live in an established and safe area) an 870, skeet-choked barrel, stocked with 4 rounds ought buckshot. Why only four? The only thing more frightening than the sound of a rattlesnake going off in the dark is the sound of a pump shotgun being racked in the dark.
Moving on along, I wouldn't own any AR whatever - don't know **** about 'em and don't want to learn. They wouldn't even make good trotline sinkers unless you tied two of them together to make enough weight to sink the line properly.
All that, and more than enough said - they ain't needed for sporting, nor for self-defense purposes. Pure toys, and God knows that I appreciate toys, to the extent that indulging myself in toys has extended my need to work awhile longer and I'm 71 years old.
Grenades are illegal, fully automatic weapons are illegal (mostly), rocket launchers are illegal - anybody own a BAR or an M50? These particular weapons and too many more to address are designed for killing people. The armed forces' business and the law enforcement's business. All others might want them, but they ain't needed. Tell yourselves otherwise till the world looks square and level...
I say make bump stocks and magazines that hold more than 8 rounds or so illegal for all others outside those entities.
I have no statistics to reinforce what I'm about to say; (Livin'2hunt, you paying attention?) it is my belief that had that crazy mothereffer had not had the weapons he had that less people would be dead. Less moms and dads and people that loved the dead grieving for their losses. I can't speak for everyone, but I can sure speak for me, I could never recover from the loss of one of my babies.
In conclusion, and allow me to repeat myself before completely closing... ban the god**** things entirely designed for killing people weapons. Other than for the military and for law enforcement.
Yeah, I have some liberal leanings - life's experiences have molded me into who I am, for better or for worse. And I smoke some dope from time to time - just as I enjoy a drink from time to time. Pull that card - I don't care and I never will care. My son and my daughter and my grandchildren love me and respect me. I won't go so far as to say that I love me, but I'm okay with myself 'cause I might as well be.
If some particular readers are not - well, I'll just write that off as a personal problem.

Good grief.
If this discussion had not been conceived - as a figure of speech - by such a tragic event, it would be almost laughable. But it's not amusing and it never will be. 58 people dead and one mothereffer that don't count. All somebody's son or daughter or father or mother or brother or sister or a close or distant relative or a dear friend. Forever dead.
Several hundred more injured. I don't know about y'all, but I personally know some people that got shot and the few of those that are still alive are just barely. I'll mention that I am a veteran, US Army. November, 1965 - November 1971. Some serious **** going on in SE Asia, do the arithmetic before challenging my experience in such matters.
I passed down all my guns to my son after I had killed my first deer with a bow, which was in 2005, I think. I've owned more guns than most people have owned shoes, no clue as to just how many. I shot quail and I shot pheasants and I shot waterfowl and I shot doves and I shot clay targets (and a few deer) with 1100's, Browning A5's and a couple Beretta's and numerous O/U's of several makes and 870's and Model 12's (pre-64's, I'm a purist) and yessir, a few times I killed 5 on a covey rise or scratched down 3 when the ducks or geese came in just right. So I can appreciate the need and desire for a repeating firearm. Pistols? Not many, a couple dozen or so, mostly wheel guns 'cause I can't hit the ground with any **** pistol. There ain't enough fingers and toes belonging to the last dozen or so posters to count the rifles I've owned - did a lot of trading, always seeking the one that had no misses installed by the factory. I owned one Model 742 in .308 and 3 different .22 caliber semi-autos. Several lever actions, both Winchester and Marlins. All the rest were bolt guns except one. A little Ruger No. 1 in 7x57 caliber, and right behind it, a Sako mannlicher stocked .243, was my favorite.
If I missed any deer more than twice and they were still a possible, I can't recall exactly when it might have been.
I love classic weapons, real and good wood and fine checkering and I think it was Warren Page that said that only accurate rifles are interesting.
To digress briefly, I've still kept one home defense weapon, (although I live in an established and safe area) an 870, skeet-choked barrel, stocked with 4 rounds ought buckshot. Why only four? The only thing more frightening than the sound of a rattlesnake going off in the dark is the sound of a pump shotgun being racked in the dark.
Moving on along, I wouldn't own any AR whatever - don't know **** about 'em and don't want to learn. They wouldn't even make good trotline sinkers unless you tied two of them together to make enough weight to sink the line properly.
All that, and more than enough said - they ain't needed for sporting, nor for self-defense purposes. Pure toys, and God knows that I appreciate toys, to the extent that indulging myself in toys has extended my need to work awhile longer and I'm 71 years old.
Grenades are illegal, fully automatic weapons are illegal (mostly), rocket launchers are illegal - anybody own a BAR or an M50? These particular weapons and too many more to address are designed for killing people. The armed forces' business and the law enforcement's business. All others might want them, but they ain't needed. Tell yourselves otherwise till the world looks square and level...
I say make bump stocks and magazines that hold more than 8 rounds or so illegal for all others outside those entities.
I have no statistics to reinforce what I'm about to say; (Livin'2hunt, you paying attention?) it is my belief that had that crazy mothereffer had not had the weapons he had that less people would be dead. Less moms and dads and people that loved the dead grieving for their losses. I can't speak for everyone, but I can sure speak for me, I could never recover from the loss of one of my babies.
In conclusion, and allow me to repeat myself before completely closing... ban the god**** things entirely designed for killing people weapons. Other than for the military and for law enforcement.
Yeah, I have some liberal leanings - life's experiences have molded me into who I am, for better or for worse. And I smoke some dope from time to time - just as I enjoy a drink from time to time. Pull that card - I don't care and I never will care. My son and my daughter and my grandchildren love me and respect me. I won't go so far as to say that I love me, but I'm okay with myself 'cause I might as well be.
If some particular readers are not - well, I'll just write that off as a personal problem.

Bob Lee, though you may not respect mine, I respect your opinion and I will fight to my dying breath for you to say and believe what you just expressed. Thank you for your service and I will not pretend to know your experiences. That being said Sir, you are free to vanquish any of your Rights you so choose. Your opinions, beliefs and experiences don't afford you or me the authority to quell anyone's 2nd Amendment Rights. And yes, I do find it a touch hypocritical that you want to be left alone about your weed but you don't want me to have MY toys. Yours are okay but mine aren't? How about my long range rifles? I can blow up a cantaloupe at 800 yards like I'm shooting a tree'd coon. Those rifles can accept a 20 round magazine. Sir, while I respect you, you and I will have to agree to disagree because me and my high capacity magazines have harmed no one.

It is foolishness to think that a bump fire stock is the *only* thing that enabled him to kill 58 and wound many more. Based on what we already know, the man had at least two other tools (bomb materials, airplane) that would have resulted in many THOUSANDS dead.

The simple fact is the shooter wanted to play god of wrath for 15 minutes, raining down his judgment upon the land. I paraphrased this quote from the following article, which I think everyone here should take the time to read. Twice.

If I hit the $700 million power ball should I be able to purchase a $40million helicopter loaded with 50 cal gunners?

And you wrote "where they are no longer arms...." and that is exactly what we're facing now.

The govt is saying a suppressor (and soon coming) bumpstocks are not "arms" and can be banned outside of the 2nd.

It's a constant power grab rights reduction.

Actually the gov’t does consider a suppressor a firearm. You have to fill out a 4473 to take possession of one from a dealer AFTER you’ve gone through all the other hoops with F1/F4. I believe that alone could be successfully argued in court and won if suppressors were to ever try to be banned.

A slidefire stock is an accessory and could be easily banned even though I think a ban would be pointless and unnecessary.

The NRA's current position on the bump stock is....."total amazement when approved by the Obama administration, they should be outlawed and confiscated." And the GOP will introduce legislation for this. I want an amendment to the Bill that says its ok to return fire when radical democrats start shooting people from hotel windows.

Nancy Pelosi has now said that "she hopes banning bump fire stocks will start the slippery slope on gun control".

That is their goal people. They don't care about bump fire stocks, they are just the conversation starter. They want your guns.

The democrats and the hope and change groups want every gun in America confiscated. When told it will never happen their reply WAS......."that's the same thing they said about same sex marriage."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livin'2hunt

Yes, they want our guns. All guns. All accessories and magazines. Fortunately, that has proved to be more difficult than they expected. The easiest course of action is not to ban guns. It is to ban ammo and components. If they do that, they are 50% to where they want to be with one vote.

The democrats and the hope and change groups want every gun in America confiscated. When told it will never happen their reply WAS......."that's the same thing they said about same sex marriage."

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrandonA

I bet you're grinnin like a little possum eatin ****. Congratulations for being part of the gun grabbing libs

Its all part of the hope and change groups doctrine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase This!

It wasn't too long ago we had a federal ban on assault rifles. Everyone's life was fine then, we knew no different. Why now is it such a big deal?

We did and we didn't, changes were made to its appearance, but we still had assault weapons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase This!

It was a big deal? Why? You couldn't make a living? You couldn't protect your home? Other?.

OTHER, the citizens would not have the tools necessary to repel an evading force/army.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase This!

I'm willing to give up a portion of my right to bear arms. No one is suggesting we turn in all our guns.

Total BS, that's the only thing the democrats and the the hope and change groups are asking for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase This!

I also believe a lot has changed in 226 years.

History will always repeat itself. Romans went progressive, and there went the Romans. They were unable to repel an invading army.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase This!

Holler at me when an email kills 58 people. Exaggerating of course.

You've been hollered at but have turned a deaf ear. Internet net is used to recruit, train, and direct terror attacks all over the world. Clean the wax out of your ears and take your partisian blinders off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JTeLarkin08

I’m good with it. I mean the military even uses 3 round burst. Why? Because you can’t hit **** when you can’t aim. That’s all the bump stocks do. I see nothing lost by getting rid of them
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes and no. I darn sure wouldn't want to engage in a fire fight using a bump fire stock. But it will be a feather in the LWL's anti gun hat giving them momentum going forward with another ban.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flywise

I think there may be two reasons they called on the ATF to review them.
1. They could be the Sacrificial lamb
2. It will highlight the fact that the obama admin was in office when they were approved
I don't believe the NRA is caving to pressure, i believe they have a strategy of some kind.
Also, bumpstocks are not a constitutionally protected product. Banning them would not an infringement to the second amendment.

The fact that the obama administration is responsible for the bump stock, this needs to be made wildly public.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase This!

It was a big deal because it was your right. I see. But really, the federal assault weapon ban wasn't a bid deal. Your safety, way of life, ability to earn a living, I could go on for days, was just fine without those toys.

It's a big deal now because you have been given something and feel theatened by the thought they might take it away.

You're talking about our rights to be able to repel an invading army, drug cartel, or terrorist shooting from hotel windows in a gun free zone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase This!

So really only useful for firing into large groups of things. People and hogs I guess?

Or returning fire on terrorists shooting from hotel windows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clay C

Seriously. The D's aren't even hiding it any more. THEIR PARTY LEADERS ARE SAYING IT IN PRESS CONFERENCES. You would have to be willfully ignorant or just stupid to not see this proposed ban for what it is.

You are right, they're not hiding that fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase This!

I don't have problem, per say. It's hard for anything to stand the test of time. A lot has changed in 200+ years. I think we can grow as a nation and be smart about things at present time.

Nothing has changed, there have always been those that want to take away what Americans have, both domestic and foreign.